Categories
Updates

USCIS Publishes Update Regarding H-1B Cap Exemption for Certain Non-Profit Organizations

Share this:

Earlier this week, USCIS announced that it is now reviewing its policy
on H-1B cap exemptions for non-profit organizations that are related to
or affiliated with institutes of higher education. USCIS is temporarily
applying “interim procedures” to applications from non-profit
organizations seeking an exemption from the standard H-1B cap based on
their affiliation/relation to an institute of higher education.

During this interim period, which became effective immediately, USCIS
will give deference to prior determinations made since June 6, 2006,
that an organization is affiliated with or related to an institute of
higher education, as long as no significant change in circumstances or
adjudication error occurred. Such agencies will be exempt from the
statutory H-1B cap. However, USCIS notes, “The burden remains on the
petitioner to show that its organization previously received approvals
of its request for H-1B cap exemption as a non-profit entity that is
related to or affiliated with an institution of higher education.”

Evidence such as a copy of the previously approved cap-exemption
petition and the previously issued applicable I-797 approval notice
that was issued by USCIS since June 6, 2006, will need to be provided.
Additionally, documentation submitted in support of the exemption will
also need to be provided. USCIS also suggests that petitioners include
a statement that attests that their organization was approved for
cap-exempt status since June 6, 2006.

Categories
Updates

USCIS Previews New E-Verify Self-Check System

Share this:

On March 10, USCIS previewed its new E-Verify Self Check system to
interested parties. During the session, USCIS representatives provided
an overview of the new system that gives U.S. workers the ability to
check their eligibility to work in the Unite States.

The Self-Check system assesses a person’s eligibility by checking their
data against USCIS records. Self-Check, USCIS notes, is expected to
reduce the potential for employment discrimination, reduce the number
of tentative nonconfirmations the E-Verify system issues and start the
process of identity assurance in the E-Verify system.

Learn more by viewing the following document:
http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Outreach/Public%20Engagement/National%20Engagement%20Pages/2011%20Events/March%202011/Presentation%20(Everify).pdf.

Categories
Global Pinoy

Victims of Crimes Fear Forced Separation from Children

Share this:

After being undocumented for three years, Antonina was introduced to George who is a US citizen.  After a short courtship they got married in a civil ceremony. The first year of their marriage was blissful.  However, after Antonina gave birth to their daughter, George started becoming abusive.  He would yell at her and throw things around the house whenever he gets upset. Antonina tried to bear with the abuses of George despite suffering severe emotional and physical pain.

Antonina did not work and was a full time housewife and mother. Whenever, George argued with her, she is reminded that she owes her life in the US to him. According to Antonina, his spouse wanted him to feel beholden to him for petitioning her to become a lawful permanent resident. The truth, however, was unknown to Antonina.  Her greencard expired after two years and George never renewed Antonina’s greencard resulting in her being out of status.

Antonina never called the police to protect herself whenever her husband hurt her. George threatened her most of the time and instilled fear in her that if she called the police, she will be deported and will not see her daughter again.

In a sudden turn of events after a very serious argument with George, Antonina picked a knife and tried to kill George while the latter was asleep. George suffered injuries and the police arrested Antonina. She is now in trial for attempted murder and is prevented from seeing her daughter. If Antonina is found guilty, she will serve sentence before being deported back to the Philippines.

Choice to Abandon

In abusive relationships, the aggrieved party has the choice to abandon the abusive partner. It would have been easier to make a decision to leave an abusive spouse if there is no “immigration issue” that needs to be considered. Fear of deportation and of being arrested by the immigration authorities is a real threat to most victims of domestic violence who are undocumented. It is for this very reason that legislation was enacted many years ago to protect victims of domestic violence.

The Violence Against Women’s Act (VAWA) gives protection to abused spouses from being deported. It allows the abused spouse to self-petition without the help of the abusive US citizen spouse. To avail of the benefits of this law, the first step is for the undocumented abused spouse to garner enough courage to make a firm decision to end the abuse by getting out of their bad situation.

Almost all of the abused spouses face real threats from their US citizen partners. There are many reasons why abused spouses are not able to freely relieve themselves from their predicament.

Although Filipino Americans are the second largest Asian American group in the US, there are still many areas in the US where the Filipino American population is very sparse. US citizen petitioners may be residing in areas where there is hardly any Filipino in the area. Thus, when a Filipino spouse is a victim of abuse, community resources are not readily available to get help. In places where there are organizations doing outreach to abuse victims, oftentimes the linguistic barrier becomes a problem. This prevents many Filipino abuse victims from freely expressing themselves and seeking assistance.

Another reason why there is strong hesitation on the part of domestic violence victims to report the crime to authorities is the unfortunate situation of “revenge arrests”.  This happens when 911 is dialed during altercations between the spouses. When the police arrives, the US citizen who is usually the more articulate party may reverse the situation and say that the perpetrator is the undocumented abused spouse. This happened to an El Salvadoran national named Maria Bolanos. When the police arrived in their home as a result of a 911 call, instead of arresting the abusive US citizen spouse, Maria was the one arrested. When she was finally cleared of the charges, the immigration authorities to her into custody and placed her in deportation proceedings.

The Secure Communities Program of the Department of Homeland Security shares its database with local police. Homeland Security is alerted whenever a person is arrested even if there are no charges filed. If the arrested person is an undocumented alien, immigration authorities will take custody of the individual.

Family First

Victims of domestic violence are anxious about reporting to authorities for fear that they may be separated from their children. This is what actually happened in the case of Antonina above. She tried to bear her sufferings in the hands of her abusive husband until she lost control and became violent herself. According to her, she was concerned about the welfare of her daughter and did not want her family to be broken up. In hindsight, she should just have abandoned her spouse before she got herself into her deplorable situation. Now she is separated not just from her spouse, she is also separated from her daughter while facing criminal charges.

The law against domestic violence and the policies behind them are clear. It protects the rights of abused spouses. For those who are suffering in the hands of abusive spouses or those who knows of friends who are in this situation, it is important to point them to the right direction. We hope that there will be enough courage on the part of victims to relieve themselves from their unfortunate situation. For their relatives who are left behind in the Philippines, constant communication with your daughter, sister or mother abroad is key to show family support when it is most needed.

(Tancinco may be reached at law@tancinco.com or at 887 7177 or 721 1963)

Categories
Updates

Japanese Nationals Stranded in the US May Remain an Additional 30 Days, USCIS Says

Share this:

USCIS has just issued an advisory for Japanese and other foreign
nationals from the Pacific region who are currently stranded in the
United States due to the recent natural disasters. According to USCIS,
individuals who have exceeded or are about to exceed their authorized
stay in the United States may be able to remain in the U.S. for an
additional 30 days.

People traveling under the Visa Waiver Program: If you are at an
airport, USCIS notes you should contact a U.S. Customs and Border
Protection office at the airport. If you are not at an airport, you
should visit a local USCIS office.

People traveling under a nonimmigrant visa: You should visit a local
USCIS office. Please make sure to bring your passport, evidence that
you are stranded (e.g., your itinerary for your cancelled flight home)
and your I-94 departure record.

Categories
Global Pinoy

Only Legitimate Wealth Qualifies for US Investors Visa

Share this:

Ronaldo arrived in the US with a B1/B2 visitors visa. He used to be an employee of a prominent and wealthy businessman. After many years of earning profits from illicit activities, Ronaldo left his employer and went to the US. He has more than a million dollars in cash available for investment.

According to Ronaldo, his family’s safety is at risk and wants to settle in the United States for good. After consulting with legal counsel, Ronaldo was informed that even if he has possession of a significant amount of cash, he may still not qualify for the investors visa.

Thereafter, Ronaldo decided to just purchase real estate properties and returned to the Philippines. He continues to hold a visitors visa and goes to the US occasionally to look into his investment properties.

Two Types of Investors Visas

Investors visas may either be granted temporarily or on a permanent basis. The temporary investors visa is known as the E2 treaty investor nonimmigrant visa. The capitalization for this E2 visa is not defined in terms of an exact minimum amount. The statute merely requires a “substantial” investment to qualify.

Substantiality depends on the nature of the business. It must be sufficient to ensure the successful operation of the enterprise. The amount of investment for a low-cost business enterprise will necessarily be lower than the amount of investment in a high-cost enterprise. The E-2 investor must hold ownership of at least 50% of the business enterprise.

On the other hand, the permanent resident investors visa also known as the EB5 or the Employment Creation Greencard requires an investment of at least $1,000,000 or $500,000 depending on where the enterprise investment is located.

Both types of visas allow the investor as well as their spouse and minor children to reside in the United States. Spouses of E2 visa holders are also entitled to an employment authorization card while their children may legally study in US schools.
   
Legitimate Wealth Only

The pertinent regulations found in 8 CFR Section 204.6 (j)(3) is clear on the specific requirements on the source of capitalization for an investors visa. For a Filipino national, a petition for an investors visa must include the following proof to show that the capital used for the investment comes from a lawful source: (i) Philippine business registration records; (ii) Corporate, partnership and personal tax returns including income, franchise, property (whether real, personal, or intangible), or any other tax returns of any kind filed with in five years, with any taxing jurisdiction in or outside the United States by or on behalf of the petitioner; (iii) Evidence identifying any other source(s) of capital; or (iv) Certified copies of any judgments or evidence of all pending governmental civil or criminal actions, governmental administrative proceedings, and any private civil actions (pending or otherwise) involving monetary judgments against the petitioner from any court in or outside the United States with the past fifteen years.

Just like the case of Ronaldo above, possession of a significant amount of money is not enough. There must be proof that the capital was amassed in a legitimate way. However, it does not necessarily mean that the capital has to be from income earned through employment or business. It can also be shown that the capital was obtained by a loan or gift from a family member, by way of inheritance or even by lotto winnings.

Active vs Passive Investment

Obtaining an investors visa require the applicant to engage in an active investment and not a passive investment.  The mere purchase of a real estate property will not qualify an individual for an investors visa. There are countries that do  allow passive investments to qualify the applicant for an investors visa. However, the US does require that the investment be an active one before a visa is approved and issued.

There are undoubtedly individuals with substantial capital who merely wish to diversify their investments to real estate in the US with no intention whatsoever to live in the US. However, for individuals with intentions to seek for an investors visa to permanently live in the US, having “unexplained wealth” will not be sufficient. The source of the capital has to be documented.

(Tancinco may be reached at law@tancinco.com or at 02 8877177)
 

Categories
Updates

USCIS to Close Ho Chi Minh City Field Office

Share this:

USCIS has announced that it will permanently close its field office in
Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam on March 31, 2011. Starting March 25, all
applications and petitions that were previously accepted by the field
office in Ho Chi Minh City may be filed with the US Department of State
consular section in that city. In cases in which it has such
authorization, that consular section will take responsibility for
processing certain cases. The Consular Section will send all other
applications and petitions to the USCIS Field Office in Bangkok,
Thailand for processing.

Learn more about the Ho Chi Minh Field office at
http://hochiminh.usconsulate.gov. Contact the USCIS Bangkok Field
Office by phone at 02-205-5352 (Thailand) or 011-662-205-5352
(International) or email at bkkcis.inquiries@dhs.gov.

Contact the Bangkok Field Office by mail:

Regular Mail
DHS/USCIS Bangkok
c/o American Embassy
Box 12
APO AP 96546

Express Mail
DHS/USCIS
Sindhorn, Tower 2, 15th Floor
130-133 Wireless Rd.
Lumpini Pathumwan
Bangkok Thailand 10330

Categories
Immigration Round Table

True Love or Romantic Opportunist? Defining Love in Immigration Marriage Cases

Share this:

Many believe that the fastest way to obtain a green card is through marriage to a US citizen. While it may indeed be the “fastest” way to become an immigrant, it is not necessarily the “easiest” route. There are serious legal consequences that result from a finding of marriage fraud.

George entered the US as a nonimmigrant L1 intra-company employee of a multinational company. When the company decided to end its US operation, George found himself in unlawful status. He did not depart the US but worked “under the table”. With his earnings, he continued to have support money sent to his spouse and minor children in the Philippines.

His relationship with his first wife ended when he discovered that an annulment case has been filed against him. His ex-wife decided to live with her lover and left their minor children. The children are now in the custody of George’s parents. George continued to provide financial support to his minor children.

In a school reunion that was held in Los Angeles CA, George met Jennifer who was his sweetheart back in high school. Jennifer was still married at the time they met. George claimed that his feelings for his high school sweetheart were rekindled and courted her again. After some time, Jennifer divorced her husband and married George. Jennifer, who is a US citizen, then filed a petition for George who eventually got his green card.  Jennifer also petitioned for one of George’s children to come to the US. George and Jennifer appeared to be a happy couple until George finally obtained his US citizenship.

As soon as George got his US citizenship, he disappeared and never returned to their home. Jennifer did not have an idea what caused George’s sudden disappearance. George sent an email to Jennifer telling her that he is no longer in love with her and that he decided to go back to the Philippines. Jennifer was shocked with the turn of events and in retrospect realized that he was merely used by George to get his immigration status. Jennifer sought legal advice and was told that it may be difficult and too late to revoke the immigration status of George.

Jennifer presents a very sympathetic case. But what actually transpired in this case that George was able to get away with his seemingly malevolent and opportunist motivations? What standards are used to determine true love from deceitful relationships entered into for purposes of obtaining the green card?

Motivation for the Marriage

A marriage that did not last for a long time does not mean that the marriage is a fraud. There are many factors that immigration officers take into account in deciding validity of these marriages. The standard is based on the intention of the parties at the time of marriage. The subjective intent or desire to marry must be clearly expressed through statements during the interview coupled with objective evidence of joint documents.

The Immigration and Nationality Act and its regulations contain provisions that assist in determining whether the marriage is fraudulent or a sham. A marriage is considered fraudulent when one or both parties enter into the marriage primarily for the purpose of obtaining resident status for the foreign spouse. This means that this immigration benefit should not be the primary motivation for entering into the marriage. The immigration officer will determine whether at the time of marriage, the parties intended to establish a life together.

The parties must be able to show that the purpose of marrying is to live a life together as a couple. Despite expressing this intention, the immigration examiner may be quick to deny a petition if the parties are unable to overcome certain doubts that may arise in their relationship. Most of the time, red flags are raised in nontraditional marriages. USCIS Adjudicators Field Manual enumerates instances of possible marriage sham if the following exist: (1) separate cohabitation; (2) disparity in age; (3) marriage between relatives; (4) no common language; (5) multiple prior marriages and (6) marriages arranged by third parties. When some of these circumstances arise, more substantiating evidence of the validity of the marriage is required.

There is no hard and fast rule in determining what and how much evidence is necessary to prove a valid marriage. Each case has its own circumstance and proving one’s true “love” as a basis for the marriage should come naturally if the marriage is real.

Citizen Accomplice

The penalties for marriage fraud are severe. For the alien spouse, Section 204(c) of the INA bars the approval of any subsequent petition filed on behalf of the immigrant. This bar applies even if subsequent petitions are already valid and real marriages. The US citizen accomplice who knowingly enters into fraud is equally liable under Section 1325(c) of 8 United States Code for imprisonment of 5 years or fine of not more than $250,000.

Opportunist Spouse

When a green card marriage is short lived, it is not unusual to come to the quick conclusion that it was probably a marriage of convenience for the opportunist spouse. In the case of Jennifer above, it is her suspicion and her side of the story that we have heard. We should, however, not be so quick to jump to a conclusion as there are always 2 sides to a separated couple’s story. Jennifer and George cohabited as a couple for 4 years. They both went through the immigration process and were found to have met the standards. If there is indeed proof that would categorically point to fraud, then there are ways of re-opening a case. But certainly not if based merely on an allegation from an abandoned spouse who would naturally be bitter from a failed relationship.

(Tancinco may be reached at law@tancinco.com or @ 1800 999 9096)

Categories
Updates

USCIS Proposes New Rule for Management of Cap-Subject H-1B Visas

Share this:

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has proposed to change
regulations regarding the governance of H-1B petitions subject to
annual caps, as well as those for people with U.S. master’s or higher
degrees. The proposed rule would require employers who wish to petition
for H-1B workers that are subject to the annual cap to first file an
electronic registration with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
(USCIS) during a designated registration period.

Under the
proposed rule, if USCIS believes that the H-1B cap will not be reached
by the first day that such petitions may be filed, USCIS will let all
registered employers know that they may petition for H-1B workers on
behalf of beneficiaries named in the selected registrations. In such an
instance, USCIS will continue to accept and select registrations until
the annual cap is reached. However, if USCIS believes that the H-1B cap
will be reached by the first day that petitions may be filed, USCIS
proposes to close the registration before that date and to, instead,
randomly select a sufficient number of registrations to meet the visas
that are available for that fiscal year.

It is USCIS’s goal,
through this proposed rule, to reduce the administrative burdens and
costs associated with employer submissions of petitions.

Categories
Updates

USCIS Reminds Petitioners to Complete Part 6 of Form I-129

Share this:

In November 2010, USCIS published a new, revised Form I-129, the
Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker. That revised form became effective
on December 23, 2010. Because there were a number of questions and
inquiries regarding Part 6 of the form (“Certification Regarding the
Release of Controlled Technology or Technical Data to Foreign Persons
in the United States”), USCIS advised individuals that they would not
be required to complete that section until February 20, 2011.

USCIS is now reminding petitioners that all petitions postmarked on or
after February 20 must include a completed Part 6 of the Form I-129.